Saturday, May 31, 2014

Are we surprised? Not really. The Republican Estblishment, not to mention Wall Street, wants this. Jeb Bush is a guy they trust. And, he has a near perfect resume. Beginning with a successful two-term Governship and a Mexican wife. His Spanish, by the way, is flawless!

It gets better! Jeb is a resident of Florida, a "must win" state for Republicans. Career politician? Try "Career Banker." Most of Jeb Bush's adult life has been spent in the banking industry, beginning in his mid-twenties. Another "inside the beltway" guy? Nope! Jeb's actually a native Texan and a graduate of U.T.-Austin. Today, he is a comfortable Miamian, enjoying his grandchildren.

With such credentials, why would the Republicans want to look elsewhere? People in the Hillary camp are ruefully acknowledging that Jeb would be "difficult to beat" in his home state. In Karl Rove's thinking, "what more" could Republicans want in a nominee?

Evidently a lot more!

Two areas of concern for Bush: "Amnesty" and "Common Core." To the Republican base, these two issues are potential deal breakers. Hence, a clear opening for a challenger.

Speaking of challengers, it's a mathematical certainty that the field will shrink when Jeb announces. Marco Rubio will definitely not run. Chris Christie will almost certainly pass. Scott Walker and Mike Pence won't get in. Ditto for Mitt Ronney, assuming that he ever seriously entertained such a notion. I can't imagine Rick Santorum doing anything but supporting Jeb Bush.

Which leaves Rand Paul and Rick Perry. Both probably will run. And, assuming that they do, strike Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Dr. Ben Carson; for different reasons.

We now have a three-man race.

We know who the Republican Establishment prefers. The question is "who" is second choice?"

We know(or think we know) who the Tea Party prefers."Who is second choice?"

We know(or think we know) who the Evangelicals(religious right) prefer. "Who" is second choice?

We know(or think we know) who the Energy sector would prefer. "Who" is second choice?

We know(or think we know) who the Defense contractors would prefer. "Who," is second choice?

We know(or think we know) who the Conservative base would prefer. "Who" is second choice?

Keep in mind that we are only talking about registered Republican voters. Independent voters and their preferences are another subject for a different post. The current question is "which" of the three expected candidates will not be a third choice with Republicans on any of these questions?

We already know that Jeb Bush will be third choice with the Tea Party. Most Tea Party Republicans are part of the Conservative base. However, this is not necessarily visa-versa! What is certain is that the base vehemently opposes both amnesty and Common Core.

We know that the Republican Establishment is wary of Rand Paul's candidacy. It has been suggested that a lot of these "Republicans" would opt for Hillary Clinton over Kentucky's Junior Senator. So, we can write "number three" by Paul's name here.

Evangelicals? A key to a Republican general election victory is getting these voters to the polls. Remember Perry's "day of prayer" held in August 2012? Jeb Bush has done well with these voters. Both Bush and Perry are "pro-life." Both see marriage as a "union between a man and woman only." Paul? Hasn't really been on his radar, although he is a strict contructionist, where religious freedom is concerned. Unfortunately, this may be a little short. Another "three" for Paul.

Energy sector preference? Perry is from a large energy state. But the energy sector has ties to the Bush camp. Perhaps a tie. But wait! Does not Texas have a number of lawsuits against the E.P.A. in progress currently? Oil and Gas companies see Perry as a "friend who won't back down." While they may be okay with Bush, assertive is better. Paul? Pretty much unknown! He might be a closet "greenie" for all they know! His opposition to voter I.D. cards was a shock! Is he capable of pulling a similar "surprise!" Any way you cut it, I see another "three."

Unlike both Paul and Bush, Perry has military experience. Not just homeside duty, like "Dubya" had. Real, combat experience. "Captain Perry" flew C-130's in his five-year Air Force tour! Russians describe the Texas Governor as "a cowboy with deep understanding of military affairs." Defense contractors trust both Perry and Bush. Rand, like Ron is thought to be an isolationist. He has even been referred to as "a dove." With Democrats and Independents, this might be an asset. With the Repubican base, both Establishment and Tea Party, it yields another "three."

Education will be the signature debate during the Republican primary. Perry and Bush have vastly different ideas on the subject. Bush supported "No Child Left Behind."(his brother's creation) Perry thought the program was a federal overreach. While both favor Charter schools, Perry opposes "Common Core." Bush supports it. Overall, both Perry and Bush have successful report cards. Paul opposes "Common Core" and is agreement with Perry that the Education Department should be abolished. But, unlike Bush and Perry, he has never been Chief Executive of a large, diverse state. Sorry Rand! But the "threes" are mounting! However, Jeb's support for "Common Core" might move you into the "two" slot here!

Immigration will be another hot topic for debate. Perry occupies the center position on this question. Jeb has angered conservatives with his talk of "compassion." Like his brother, he favors amnesty. Perry talks about the need for "boots on the ground," as the only guarantee of securing the borders. He has shown moderation for illegals in the country through no fault of their own. Paul's position is fairly close to Tom Tancredo's.

Jeb Bush will tout a solid environmental record. But Perry's is equally impressive. Expect both Texas' and Florida's report cards to come into focus. Paul? Nothing to compare. Ah, the advantages of "Executive" experience!

In short, this "three-way race" could and probably should be a two-way race. A Perry-Bush matchup would pit two experienced Governors of large diverse states. Paul will likely pull voters from Perry! This is the biggest concern for Republicans not wanting Jeb Bush as the nominee.

The good news for Perry is that he has "no threes." The Establishment will support him. Wall Street sees him as "pro business." The Tea Party will mobilize behind him. Evangelicals will turn out for him.

While Evangelicals might do the same for Bush, it's highly possible that the Tea Party will not. Herein lies the problem for Jeb Bush and Republicans wanting to merely "slow down" and not "derail" advancing Socialism and Americas' participation in the "New World Order."(George H.W. Bush's words) The Republican base wants fundamental change. The Bushes historic embrace of big government appears at odds with this objective.

Where Bush would "tweak and attempt to perfect" the existing structure, Perry would strive to reform it. This is what conservatives seek. The key will be to recognize the stakes early. While Rand Paul excites many, the practicality of his nomination remains debious.

The 2016 Republican nominee can be chosen by the base. But only, if they unite. Getting lost in the weeds over sidebar issues such as "Autobahns, Bilderberg Breakfasts, tuition tax waivers and vaccines that were never implemented" will insure Jeb Bush's nomination.

Conservatives must insist that the failed theory of "nominating the moderate" cannot be repeated. Expect Neo-Con warnings from the likes of Bill Kristol and Karl Rove, urging the base to play "small ball." Equally anticipated are the "friends" at Fox News who will predictably "shill" for Bush.

In short, 2016 may be America's last chance to right the ship. Winning the election, while important, isn't enough. During the first half of the previous century, the American train took what seemed at the time, a benign detour.

It will take a statesman of the magnitude of Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln to return the train to it's original track. Based on personal history and on the job performance, Rick Perry looks to be the only American capable of filling the bill.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

America's future may ultimately be decided by a few, well meaning geriatrics.

Don't look now but this fall's Kentucky Senate race may prove to be the most mean, most divisive in U.S. History. The players: Republican incumbent, Mitch McConnell versus Democrat challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes. At stake: Senate majority!

Everyone knows Mitch. Most don't like him very much. But who is Grimes? Kentucky's 35-year-old Secretary of State, like Rand Paul, opposes voter I.D. cards? Somehow, I don't think that she is a Libertarian!

Here's a hint. Bill Clinton may be around this fall to join her on the campaign trail! That's right! A child of former State Representitive, Jerry Lundergan, Alison grew up in a political family. She attended Law School in Washington D.C. and has the "scent" of a future Washingtonian wannabee!

How does a small town(Mayfield), Southern girl get tangled up with the party of "same sex marriage, Obamacare, Cap & Trade, Gun Control and Government funded abortions?" D.C. does have an effect on you! It also helps when you see a "sugar daddy" smiling amiably at you, encouraging you to shoot for the stars!

Yes, Alison is an attractive candidate, in a physical sense, if nothing else. But, besides coveting the homeless vote, what is she all about?

We know the Clinton's like her. So does Planned Parenthood and the National Education Association. And we can add a dozen "Pro-Obama" PACS who have already rendered millions of dollars to her campaign. Among them are alternative energy companies hell bent on destroying the coal industry!

Contradictory is her promise to stand up for the coal industry. This is simply impossible! It would be similar to Adoph Hitler promising to defend and advance Jewish causes. Perhaps his definition of "defend" was to escort the Hebrew nation straight to the gas chambers! In Alison's case, she would join Harry Reid in killing the industry altogether. Her donors would expect no less!

Job creatiion? If she were genuinely serious about this goal, she would be screaming for deregulation. Instead of looking at "Uncle Bill" with the eyes of a lapdog, she would be on the phone with Governor Rick Perry asking "why has Texas created one out of every two full time jobs in America over the past five years? What's your secret? Can you share it with us?"

Be real! A career in Washington is what every aspiring feminist lawyer, turned Senate candidate dreams of! For Alison to level with God fearing folks in the Commonwealth would make as much sense as Barack Obama telling Jeremiah Wright to publish a book called "I hates 'dem white folkes!"

In short, Alison Lundegan Grimes is totally a creation of far left PACS, aimed at keeping Harry Reid in control of the Senate. Her campaign platform is one huge contradiction! She knows this. So do they! But, Democrats are on the fence. Things look bad for many Democrats in "red" states. The party needs an upset.

Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate too long. He is the poster boy for "why" we need "term limits." By the same token, Alison Lundegan Grimes is the poster girl for "why" we need to abolish the 17th amendment.

This will be one "nasty" campaign. Grimes hopes that she can win on "spin, media support and McConnell's overall unpopularity." McConnell hopes to "define" her as "Nancy Pelosi with a Kentucky drawl." He has already challenged her to three debates. If she is smart, she will agree to one or none.

The old people watch these debates. And, while aching to give Alison the benefit of the doubt, they are more difficult to "sizzle!" A cagy veteran like Mitch McConnell is capable of getting past the "fluff" and exposing her minimal substance. That's why 'ole Mitch is ready to rumble!

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Someone looking for an argument should tell a Rand Paul supporter that the Kentucky Senator cannot be elected President of the United States.

Much will be written over the next few months about Presidential possibilities. Especially after the November midterms. What we are currently witnessing are attempts to gain media exposure. Senator, Paul and most recently, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida are testing the water. In Rubio's case, he's looking at a run on the basis of "if" Jeb doesn't run. Paul has already made up his mind.

Rubio's gestures hint that Jeb Bush may stay out. If he does, the race could be wide open. GOP Establishment might even be ready to dust off Mitt Romney, if Chris Christie's slipping New Jersey economy results in a no go! The prospect of a Paul nomination, let alone a Presidency isn't something that Wall Street wants to experience!

The question becomes, "why?" Actually there are two "whys!" Why does Wall Street so vehemenly dislike Paul? And why does Rand Paul think that he can actually win the general election?

Let's begin with something Dad said six years ago. For those who recall the 2008 Republican debates, Ron Paul got into a mildly heated exchange with Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. It stemmed from Paul's comment that the nation had "borrowered money from the Chinese to finance a world empire." He was talking about Iraq specifically.

In watching Rand Paul's reaction to Putin and Crimea, it is clear that this orientation was passed from father to son. Rand, like Ron, has isolationist leanings.

Anyone who has read G. Edward Griffin's, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," will readily understand where both Rand and Ron are coming from.

Merge this understanding with a isolationist persuasion and you have discovered Paul's secret road map. In essence, "how" he will be elected President.

Lost? Let us take a quick review of Griffin's book.

The Federal Reserve was formed in 1910. Charter members hailed from the Northeast U.S. and Western Europe. All of the major banking interests were represented. The goal was to secretly formulate a plan that would insure their world dominance. It worked!

Over the years, the America people have lead the way in paying for World War One,the Bolshevik Revolution, the Saving of England's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War Two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and the 2008 banking meltdown. Today these eight globalist cartels represent 100 trillion American dollars in collective net worth. Nobody knows for certain how they amassed such wealth.

Griffin refers to our currency as "fiat money." As he put it, "we have about 1/2 trillion dollars in Fort Knox gold. That's it." The world takes the dollar on trust. "For now," he warns,"but that could change overnight."

People have been preaching "doomsday" since the founding of the country. If you don't get enough, turn on the TV and watch the gold dealer ads! Yet, there is something more than telling America that "the sky is falling" in Paul's message.

It amounts to not "this will happen if you don't do this," as much as "this happened because a few greedy people decided to use their positions of power to manipulate the country. Their tool was the Federal Reserve."

When people begin looking at who these "few greedy people" are, problems arise.

The cartels represent majority stockholding interests in every Fortune 500 company. Obviously, the last thing Wall Street wants is an agitator in the White House! No doubt, these "Republicans" would be much more comfortable with Hillary Clinton as President than Rand Paul!

Griffin's book makes for a first class debate on banking and finance. Problem is, most Americans have trouble understanding their own personal bank statement. Wouldn't this sort of issue be slightly "too intellectual" for "Joe Six Pack?"

Griffin's ultimate solution amounts to a return to a precious metal backed currency. This isn't particularly novel. People have been discussing a "silver certificate" for years! The hitch that may be in the back of the Senator's mind is how the existing Federal Reserve notes might be utilized.

Along side it would be the creation of a commodity backed dollar. The first recipients of the new dollar would be those drawing Social Security. Meanwhile Federal Reserve notes would cease to be legal tender. As a result, there would be massive inflation, perhaps as much as 1000%. Thus, the average NEA salary of $103,500 per year would now have the buying power of $10,350.

In my personal discussion with Mr. Griffin, he recommended "hoarding" as much "junk silver" as possible. The transition would take six months to a year. Eventually, the country would regain it's footing on solid, financial ground. The holders of the most "fiat money" would take the bulk of the brunt.

Fantasy? Not necessarily to Joe Six Pack! You just told him that his $1231 per month mortgage payment can be paid for in Federal Reserve notes. But his salary from S & S Tire will be paid in a commodity backed dollar. Still confused? Take this into consideration.

America's net worth is probably in the range of 170 trillion dollars. Most of the wealth, however, is in the ground or on top of it. 28% of America's real estate is owned by the Federal Government. Put to proper use, the full wealth of the nation could be put to work for the American people. How? By simply selling lands, including mineral rights, office buildings and other real assets to American companies and individuals!

Where Joe might have been making $36,000 per year using the old currency, he is now paid $12,000 per year in the new currency. But his mortgage payment would translate to $123 per month and likely heading down!

Wall Street would consider this scenario lunancy. But Griffin proponents would describe it as "payback" for a 100-year loan. In other words, the wealth transfer that has taken place beginning in 1910, especially since 1997, would be corrected.

How a Paul Adminstration would handle the military and the Immigration question is unknown. But such a strategy, considered "Draconian" by most of the world, might reach to the heart and soul of a frustrated America. If "Dr.Paul's" reading of Americas' pulse is correct, he will be elected President.

An isolationist can always retreat to the depression era watchwords, "charity begins at home." Paul knows that the bulk of his countrymen are tired of attending to the worlds' needs, while millions here at home, continue to live in poverty.

Amazingly, the Freshman Senator could probably get away with it, assuming that he was not assassinated along the way. Those cartels include many who recall the last century in all too graphic detail! Throughout history, one fact always has remained: "The same few people will always end up with the money. Eventually."

Paying off the Federal debt in Federal Reserve notes would be contractually legal. True, there would be some angry world partners! Not to mention more angry people here at home! But in understanding Griffin's concept of "fiat money," Paul would be making good on a campaign promise: "To propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution." His methodology would amount to "cranking up the printing presses."

Without question, a lot of Americans would call this approach "revolutionary."
But, if you have listened to his message closely, Paul is talking about everything except maintaining the status quot.

Can we now understand why he thinks that he can win? He may know more than a lot of us!

Saturday, May 10, 2014

With cats, the best methods are to "offer something truly enticing," such as a plate of freshly caught fish. Or, to "approach them with something genuinely unpleasant," such as a large bucket of ice water.

Even then, it still isn't a certainty. Most of the cats will come to the fish platter, provided they trust their noses. Most will run from a bucket of ice water; if they know what is in the bucket. Herein lies the problem!

Cats react. Unfortunately conservatives have similar tendencies.

We are assuming that if Jeb Bush doesn't run, Chris Christie and possibly Mitt Romney will. Supporters of any of the three will be happy with either candidate. This is the Republican Establishment. While smaller than the party base in number, they are narrow in purpose, unified and disciplined.

Most Tea Party members would agree that neither Bush, Christie or Romney should be the nominee. But who should be? Ask ten members. You will likely get eight answers!

2012 should have been a wake up call for conservatives. We can go off in eight different directions, systemically creating a path to victory for the Establishment candidate. Or, we can decide early on an alternative. But how?

Would it not be both arrogant and presumptuous to say, "your guy doesn't have a chance?" How do we honestly know who can or can't win? Perhaps conservatives should create their own nominee litmus test! The test would be based on the following criteria:

(a)Experience. Someone with zero political experience is going to be a tough sell. Executive experience has proven to be superior to legislative experience.
(b)Home state. No candidate has ever won the Presidency who did not win their home state. Can each candidate be certain that they will win their home state.
(c) Resources. It takes a lot of money to run a fifty-state campaign. Which candidate/s will be able to compete with Hillary Clinton's massive war chest?
(d) Organization- To compete in 50 states, it takes an adequate number of staffers to make certain that the campaign is in compliance with the individual state election rules.
(e) Previous accomplishments. A good "report card" from previous positions is always preferable to a bad one!
(f) Name recognition. Not a deal breaker, but it doesn't hurt to have a candidate who is known.
(g) Likeability. Many voters don't even get to the issues or how a candidate voted. If they "like" someone, they gravitate to them.
(h) Demograhpic appeal- America is growing more diverse with each passing day.
(i) Psychographic appeal- Which candidate best "connects" with America based on lifestyle, values and socio-economic background?
(j) Needed more at home. In many cases, presidential candidates would be giving up a Senate seat or would be better off running for a winnable Senate seat. This is truly "big picture," but it is a consideration.

Too cerebral? Maybe! But if we used such a scale, rating candidates on each individual consideration, it would prove interesting to note how the candidates stacked up.

Let's start with (j). Scott Walker should win re-election to a second term as Governor of Wisconsin. In 2018, freshman Senator, Tammy Baldwin will be up for re-election. A successful two-term governor would be difficult to beat! Especially for a Lesbian woman with an ultra liberal voting record!

Mike Pence could challenge Joe Donnelly for the Indiana Senate seat in 2018. A successful governor in a "red state," would almost certainly translate to another Senate pickup.

Ditto for Sarah Palin! Alaskans needs her in the Senate. So does America!

Speaking of "needs," Kentucky needs Rand Paul! The "Bluegrass state" is rich in mineral and agricultural resources. His voice for Federalism is in stark conflict with the traditional "Bill Clinton, Ward of the Nation" mentality that has dominated Commonwealth politics for generations.

In Louisiana, Senator David Vitter will run for Governor. This opens the door for Bobby Jindal to effectively "switch jobs" with Vitter. Jindal has been rumored as a Presidential possibility.

Let's move to (b), home state. While Mike Pence would easily win Indiana and Palin Alaska, would Scott Walker win Wisconsin? Could Rick Santorum win Pennsylvania. "Possibly" on both counts! But not "definitely" on either!

Name recognition,(f) would be topped by former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee. It's difficult to compete with someone having a prime time television show! Of equal importance: "Is that recognition viewed in a positive or negative manner?" More Republicans have heard of Rick Perry than any of the candidates, other than Huckabee. But his 2012 campaign was a bit rocky at times! Rand Paul is associated with Ron Paul. Rick Santorum is linked to social issues.

Experience (b)-Huckabee was last in office in 2007. Santorum's last year was 2006. Allen West served one term in the U.S. House of Representitives. Ben Carson never saw political office. Rand Paul is in his fourth year as a U.S. Senator. Ditto for Marco
Rubio, although Rubio previously served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representitives. Ted Cruz is in his second year in the Senate.

While Walker and Pence have Executive experience, no one holds a candle to Rick Perry on this front! His is finishing his 14th year as Governor of the second largest and one of the most diverse states in America. Most of his 63 years were spent as a "dry wheat farmer" in West Texas. "Captain Perry" also flew C-130's in his five-year Air Force tour.

Which takes us to (e), "previous accomplishments." Arkansans will quickly tell you how much "better Governor" Mike Huckabee was when compared to Bill Clinton. Bill's strategy was based on procuring more money from Washington. Huckabee took advantage of Arkansas' vast agricultural resources and brought industry to the state. Working with a skeptical, Democrat dominated, state House and Senate, he did wonders! But Perry's accomplishments in Texas may be remembered as the "greatest single exibition of governorship in the history of American Governorships!" No other candidate is even close in regard to previous accomplishments!

Organization?(d) At this juncture, it is doubtful that any of the candidates will be prepared to compete with the Establishment choice, other than Perry, Paul and possibly Huckabee. Paul will run. Odds are that Perry will run. Chances are, Huckabee will not run. Fielding a nationwide organization takes money and a lot of it! It also takes time and planning. Perry will have a lot of the former on his hands once he finishes his term this December. That will result in more time for fundraising.

Resources(c) may be the single most important factor in launching a successful campaign. Perry will have backing from the Energy sector. He will be supported by defense contractors and business leaders. Rand Paul has a proven fundraising strategy his father dubbed "money bombs." The rest of the field looks suspect, including Governor Huckabee.

On considerations (h) and (i),"demographic" and "psychographic" appeals, a running mate can be crucial. Rand Paul does extremely well with Millennials(voters under 30 years of age). But he has had little exposure to Hispanic voters, who will likely decide the 2016 Presidential race.

Marco Rubio is seen by Millennials as a "rock star." He also polls superbly with immigrants. Better yet, he is especially liked by "females under 40."

Governor Huckabee is a non-threatening, reassuring voice. But many associate him(correctly) with the religious right. This in itself, isn't bad. But, it may not be enought to lure mercurial Hispanic and Millennial voters...

Perry tallied 44% of Hispanic votes in the 2010 Texas General election. Due in part to his own modest background, he connects with "blue collar" Democrats. While Paul does well with the latter, he is extremely suspect with the former. Same holds true with Evangelicals, whose turnout is crucial for a Republican victory. Where Paul is dry, factual and analytical, both Perry and Huckabee are warm and charismatic.

Which brings us to (g), "likeability." All too often, voters base their decision on which candidate they like the most. This could be the single greatest intangible in the 2016 race. Hillary Clinton is not liked by much of her own constituency. An opportunity exists; if the Republican candidate is someone voters simply like!

Have we concluded our "connecting of the dots?" If so, we should have an answer!

If Jeb Bush runs, odds are Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio and likely Rick Santorum and Scott Walker will not run. It's all but certain that Cruz and Jindal will not enter the race if Perry runs.

At that point, assuming that Huckabee stays out, we will be down to three choices: Bush, Perry and Paul. Bush's path to victory will surprisingly be through Rand Paul!

Paul and Perry would split the conservative vote. This could be pivotal in Iowa and South Carolina. Bush's supporters will be solidly united, game to watch Paul and Perry attempt to convince the base that their vision is the correct one. Meanwhile the delegates will pile up. Fox News will "shill" for Jeb Bush and we will have a repeat of 2012.

Conversely, if the race is only Perry and Bush, a single argument will be on the table: "Is it better to leave all decision making to Washington? Or, should we allow the states more discretion?"

Bush fears a one-on-one face off with Perry. He knows that it could be a repeat of the 2010 Texas Republican Gubernatorial primary. For those who remember, the entire Bush machine supported then Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Her message was "look what we(in Washington) have done for you." Perry positioned her as a "big government, Washington knows best," Republican. In the end, he crushed her!

In short, Republicans can nominate Jeb Bush for President; and be content that he is not Mitt Romney! Or, they can clear the field, choosing the strongest, best qualified alternative.

Unlike Bush or Paul, Perry can unite the party; the entire party! The Establishment will open their coffers for Perry. The Tea Party will embrace him. The Evangelicals will turnout for him.

Marco Rubio represents the finishing touch! He will bring his younger, more diverse followers to both the ticket and the Republican Party. In the end, Repblicans will win in 2016. Handily.

It would appear that the only thing standing in the way is Senator Paul, who likely couldn't win anyway!

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Bell Book Candle is a pro-Obama blog that recently rendered a prediction: "If several states elected to proceed with secession, it would only be a "matter of time before they would be begging to be re-admitted."

In other words, "be careful what you wish for!"

The position taken by Bell Book Candle reflected the President's. Minus eight or nine southern states, "it would be a perfect time to amend the constitution, introducing more modern gun laws and restrictions on discriminatory practices." As this author phrased, "we can make this Union a more perfect Union during the absence of an obstructive GOP."

This paradigm is mostly universal amoung members of the far left. So convinced are they that their way is the best way, that they have ignored the lessons of history!

Socialism/Communism doesn't work and never has!"

In truth, the majority would rather keep the nation intact. Separation would be a last resort, an admission of failure to work out differences. But, to quote Civil War Historian and Michigan native, Bruce Catton, "the combination of impudence and impotence is a disastrous mixture."

The first warning sign comes when emotion trumps logic. The left has made advances. Universal Health Care is gradually being implemented. The nation appears to be more tolerant where Gay rights are concerned. Huge strides have been made in the environmental movement. Race relations are better than they have ever been. Good, but not good enough for far left zealots! Herein lies the problem!

The United States Navy had a slogan that is worth noting, "rock 'em, sock 'em, but don't lose your shirt." In other words, "engage in a cautious manner, get in your licks but don't over play your hand."

This advice is obviously falling on deaf ears!

So convinced are these ideologues that their position will prevail, they have overlooked an important detail: "They are not merely talking about a "few Southern states." They are talking about the majority of states!

Even more significantly, these states that are home to "obstructive GOP" types hold most of America's mineral and agricultural resources. Oops!

A few recall when Governor, Rick Perry jokingly mentioned the word secession in 2011. Relax! Governor Perry feels about secession the way his historical mentor, Sam Houston felt: "Deep opposition." But both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee strongly opposed secession. The question that is emerging is "should the 10th amendment be our guide?" Progressive ideologues are quick to say, "are you serious?"

Damn right, we're serious! Dead serious! Hence, we see the coming "clash of perceptions." The first War Between the States has been called a "clash of perceptions." It could have been averted. The Corwin Act, passed in February 1861 should have ended any Southern property concerns. But it didn't! The two sides had reached a point where emotion prevailed over logic.

2014 differs from 1861 in one sense: Intelligent people can find abundant logic for making the "peaceful separation" argument. Progressives see it as an opportunity to amend the constitution to their advantage. Their counterparts see something much bigger.

Estimated net worth of the United States of America is approximately 170 trillion dollars. Most of this wealth is "on top of the ground and under it." To use a G. Edward Griffin term, our currency is "fiat money," holding no real value. Griffin estimates that total gold reserves in Fort Knox are "about 1/2 trillion."

28% of American lands are owned by the Federal Government. Our dollar's value is based on the nations promise to pay. A sudden division of states would result in global turmoil at epic proportions.

Amazingly, the first sober question regarding separation is, "what about Social Security?" Surprisingly, the answer is one of the easiest. "Since the program is a "Ponzi scheme," the payment would be made as they are now, month-to-month, as you go!

Same would hold true with Medicare. Florida's Marco Rubio clarified it best in proclaiming, "we have a revenue problem." In other words, "more people working, more paying taxes." In short, lower taxes and less regulations equal more jobs, more tax revenues.

Thus, we are at the "apex" of the argument! Progressive ideologues talk about job creation. Yet there are two million less working today than in 2008. Their opponents remind that the regulation happy administration has proffered policies that "kill jobs." These begin with Obamacare and end with an E.P.A. gone wild! Throw the world's highest corporate income tax into the fray and you indeed have a government that is "part of the problem," if not "the problem."

Solution: "They do it their way, we do it our way." Since these Progressive Ideologues are so brilliant, they should be delighted to be proven correct! Meanwhile, they can reconstruct what is left of the country into their Western Europeon dream: "An Oligarchy run from a central point."

Bidding Washington "adieu," would be easier said than done. Emotion would be the tie-breaker. Confiscation of guns and forced acceptance of a Gay lifestyle could push those initially opposed to separation over the edge. It then becomes a propaganda war. As the economic advantages become evident, the idea becomes more palatable.

Take Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland out of Illinois, Michigan and Ohio and those states become as "red" as Kentucky, where 63% voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. New York, sans New York City becomes a red state. Pennsylvania without Philadelphia moves to the red column!

There are currently initiatives in several states calling for separaton within. Topping that list is California. Venture Capitalist, Tim Draper has introduced a measure that would split California into six states. There are expected to be sufficient signatures to get the measure on the June ballot. Even if it passed, it's unlikely that the measure will get past Congressional committee. Still...

Draper's division included "South California" and "Central Califormia." Both skewed slightly Republican during the past four elections. They account for 15 million people, and roughly 40% California's territory. Not to mention vast mineral resources and some of the nations finest agricultural lands! And, a "window" on the Pacific that happens to include a huge Naval base!